Re: [ga] About GA membership again......

["Christopher Ambler" <cambler@iodesign.com>]

> There was no explicit process, Chris.  But the absence of a process does
not
> lend legitimization to an otherwise unsanctioned process.  And in any
event,
> the real process would have been to get the approval of the NSF.  They
were the
> only ones empowered to grant authorization to add new gTLDs at that time.

Unsanctioned? That would imply that there was someone to give sanction in
the first place. Let's examine that.

I'm glad we're having this dialogue, actually. NSF had been asked by NSI
about
adding new TLDs, and deferred to IANA at the time, since Jon was working on
an RFC for the process. So your "authorized process" via NSF traces right
back
to IANA again. There's your sanction - NSF, through its agreement with IANA
(the one agreement that HAS seen the light of day).

This "no explicit process," if anything, was what Jon was working on at the
time.
Indeed, one could correctly argue that it was the failure of that process
that
caused the USG to reassert itself as it has done.

So, to conclude, the "authorized process," in working with IANA, never
came to fruition. That lack of completion can be correctly interpreted as a
lack of "authorized process" if you wish. But it in no way diminishes the
history of the attempt, and in no way degrades from the positions of those
who
were involved with the process, hence the call for those who were involved
to be recognized in their positions. What form that recognition takes is
still
open to debate, but the recognition is clear.

--
Christopher Ambler
chris@the.web

--
This message was passed to you via the ga@dnso.org list.
Send mail to majordomo@dnso.org to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html